I do not see any reason to abandon the constraint that cyclic gerunds require a finite rank.
So that leaves the recently defined gerund"n issue. I don't think there's any really good answers there. Any choice leaves me feeling regretful. That said, the installed base for gerund"n is currently quite limited. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 10:59 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting idea, and better IMO. It would be incompatible with the > recently-defined gerund"n, and it would make noun"_ problematic because > boxed arguments might look like gerunds. Therefore I vote against it. > > Henry Rich > > > > On 12/27/2021 10:01 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > > Ok, that makes sense. > > > > Also, your statement: > > > >> u"n is defined to do two things: partitioning and assigning a rank > >> for combining purposes. > > is key, here, I think. > > > > Would we lose any important identities if the partitioning for cyclic > > gerunds were one rank lower than the rank for combining purposes? > > > > Thanks, > > > > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
